Ron Cranford has Died
Ronald Cranford, the neurologist and bioethicist who made something of a career testifying on behalf of dehydrating the cognitively disabled, has died. He had kidney cancer, and I assume that this was the cause of his death.
I disagreed vehemently with Dr. Cranford. I saw him testify in the Robert Wendland case and his cool recounting of the process of dehydration chilled me to my bones, as did his ready admission that he had removed sustenance from people who were clearly conscious. I actually think that testimony was the primary reason the court refused to allow Wendland's tube sustenance to be stopped. And his examination of Terri Schiavo seemed conducted in such a hurried way that she would be unlikely to respond.
We met only once at a debate about Terri Schiavo in Florida. We were pleasant and civil to each other. Nothing more.
What is the proper response to the death of someone who has been an implacable adversary? I think it is the response we should have to the death of every human being. We should set those old disputes aside and hope that in the Great Beyond, he finds forgiveness and peace.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:33 AM
48 Comments
48 Comments:
I've never commented here before because I didn't want to go through the pain of registering with Blogger (and I do understand why you require it from the comment spam I get on my privately hosted blog). However, your comments of compassion for a man that had made my, and I'm sure your, blood boil was worth commenting on. I think it is moments like this when we are most able to show how much we value all human life by demonstrating that we value the lives of those who we vehemently disagree with. As such I was very glad to see this post. You wrote well what many of us believe.
Thank you for your tireless and extremely valuable work.
Thanks, Ken. Onward.
Well, one down, how many more to go. I am sure Satan was waiting for him at the Gates to Hell. What an evil man and I feel no remorse whatsoever. Wait, maybe that he wasn't charged and tried for attempted murder, conspiracy and collusion to murder, murder, et al. The man was PURE EVIL. I had the pleasure of emailing him when I heard he had cancer. I asked him would be be dehydrating himself to death anytime soon. He denied he had cancer and told me "I inspired him to continue his work". QUOTE!
There is a sigh of relief around this country. Don't let the earthly door hit you on your evil @ss, Cranford.
I am having a GoodBye Cranford Party! Cheers!
"vehemently disagree ?"
Excuse ME? You apparently don't know the record of Ronald Cranford, his words killed people, innocent people! He had a yard stick on life and who should live and who should die. He tried to become a new founder of our constitution by stating PVS and AD patients did not have constitutional rights! To say he was a diablocial servant of EVIL is an understatement. He made Dr. Jack look like a Saint.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Call me a bad Christian, God understands.
This is a Joyous day for me and America!
I think the proper response is to 'set those old disputes aside' in that Cranford himself is no longer an opponent. To the extent that we've had any interaction with him (I have not), we can recall fondly anything civil and pleasant about that interaction. In these ways, we can respond to Cranford's death as we should to any other person's.
However, the ideology Cranford represented is still very much alive and seeking lives to devour. His absence may aid us only as a setback for his ideology. We should be looking now for the lessons that can be learned from 'combat' with Cranford; his think-alikes are surely doing the same with respect to us.
WatchingFlorida, no one need call you a 'bad Christian.' You apparently think that already. Assuming the God you believe in is really there, he most certainly does understand. I believe he understands more than you know.
Our response to the death of someone like Cranford can be a significant means of communicating the kind of compassion promoted by a 'culture of life.' Certainly, our opponents might expect us to respond without compassion. Perhaps we should not so cruelly and hastily confirm their accusations against us. The God you claim expects nothing less.
BAP I know what kind of Christian I am and I certainly know my God does understand. My God and your God are the same supreme being. My disclaimer was for those that I knew could not resist to commenting on my joy. I have communicated with Cranford and his ZEAL and words made my blood run cold and the hair on head curl. This man had no conscience and society should have been protected from him. How he did what did in the name of bioethics is a story that belongs on Unsolved Mysteries with errie music playing in the back ground. This freak lived under the radar screen and should have been arrested and jailed years ago. My GOD took him out. ::::happydance::::::
WF: I don't think your Lord would exhibit such joy at the cancer death of Dr. Cranford. I think His attitude would be of sadness and concern. Not exactly loving your enemies...
I don't wish death on anyone. I definitely don't wish a miserable death on anyone. That is what Cranford himself did with his work in the euthanasia movement. Instead, I'll just hope that there really is a maker. When Cranford meets him/her, I think he's got a lot of 'splaining to do.
Wesley,
When did Dr. Death die?
Richard Parker
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Actually, he died last night. Heard about it today.
Deep Toad:
"I don't wish death on anyone. I definitely don't wish a miserable death on anyone. That is what Cranford himself did with his work in the euthanasia movement. Instead, I'll just hope that there really is a maker. When Cranford meets him/her, I think he's got a lot of 'splaining to do."
If you don't wish a miserable death on anyone, why do you insist that people with leukemia, MND and so on continue to suffer? It's inconsistent. Let them end their lives if they so choose. You allow them starvation and "slow euthanasia", so why not let them die quickly if they want to?
Cranford's obituary is in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune.
According to his wife, he was against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide, but it's pretty obvious he couldn't see the hypocrisy of such beliefs when he advocated the starving and dehydration of cognitively disabled people by declaring them "PVS."
It's my own personal belief he was little better than a quack.
"According to his wife, he was against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide, but it's pretty obvious he couldn't see the hypocrisy of such beliefs when he advocated the starving and dehydration of cognitively disabled people by declaring them "PVS."
"Candy's" (Cranford) attempt to cover up/defend *Dr. Human Death's crimes on humanity were lame.
* A name he gave himself.
Well, first off, I would like to say that you are an honorable man, Wes.
I am sure you don't "remember me," but I am "on you side" as far as pro-life and anti-death goes; However (even though I admit it is sometimes *very* hard) we must forgive our enemies, because they have worth and value too, and you are to be commended for passing on the love given you by The Almighty Creator -on to those (like Cranford) who need it the most! (You have fulfilled the most important dictate of Christ: Following His example in John 13:15 and doing greater works in John 14:12; Just like a cop killed in the line of duty, it is not how he died that makes him a Hero, but how he lived: Lots of folk died on the cross, but only one perfect example, and you are following his footsteps!)
That being said, I must fault you on one point, not for being too conservative, as most would, but in being too liberal.
With all due respect, you are one of those who recently failed me and exhibited a lack of "personal responsibility" in lack of coming to my aid when I myself was battling to save Theresa Marie "Terri" Schindler-Schiavo:
Now, I am not claiming to be the hardest working or most deserving, but the record is clear: For whatever reason, I came closer to saving Terri in court than did anyone. I almost won my petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus to free the illegally detained young woman:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf
To put things into perspective, lets see Fla. Gov. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush's attempt before the same court, on the same issue, using different tactics:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf
While I was narrowly defeated in my motion for rehearing 4-3, Jeb was defeated in his motion for rehearing before the same panel by a 7-0 margin -twice!
Wesley, I wore three hats in my bid to save Terri:
* Reporter for my web-paper, The Register.
* Tireless protester / demonstrator, sometimes sleeping in my car in vigil, and arguing with police to *uphold* the law, not break the law.
* And, lastly, I went before *every* single court which had jurisdiction, except the Federal Appeals court: I even petitioned the US Supreme Court -and the Courts of Heaven -and even the "asleep at the switch" United Nations:
http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/UN.html - mirror: http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/UN.html
All that I asked of you, if you recall my several electronic mails to you, was a little support in getting the word out: A free Press (that's YOU, Wes), is a safeguard against a tyrannical government.
How do you know that your press coverage would not have swayed one more vote on the Fla. Supreme Court -and saved Terri.
Yes, I know that the court is "technically" not supposed to be "influenced" by the press, but then again, the constitutional forefathers thought differently, or else they would not have given us the various 1st Amendment rights of press, assembly, redress, religious expression, and speech -all five of them.
All I asked of you was a little press coverage commensurate with my efforts and accomplishments, both great, and you did not grant me them.
I don't know what you were thinking, but I will trust that either:
1) I was wrong in my assumption that press coverage would have helped me get a "fair day in court" when trying to save Terri (and others!) -or;
2) You were wrong, but recognize your mistake.
In the case of number 2 (whether or not you immediately recognize a mistake), I will have forgiveness ready and on standby, since I know that I myself too make mistakes.
(PS: I'm not bragging, but sincerely upset I was not assisted in my attempt to save Terri, but if not one else toots my own horn, I must needs be the one.)
Hoping all is finding you well -and thank you for helping others -even if you did not jump in the torrid waters to help ME when I was trying to save a sinking Terri -and going down myself.
With kind regards, I am sincerely,
Gordon Wayne Watts, hailing from (temporary home) Lakeland, Florida, USA, and (permanent home) Heaven
Sorry I disappointed you.
Winston Jen said...
"If you don't wish a miserable death on anyone, why do you insist that people with leukemia, MND and so on continue to suffer? It's inconsistent. Let them end their lives if they so choose. You allow them starvation and "slow euthanasia", so why not let them die quickly if they want to?"
First off, I'm not telling anyone what to do. But, I think doctors engaging in ending life is stupid. Their job - their ONLY job is to take care of people. I don't mean like a mobster taking care of someone. I mean what they take an oath to do.
All right then, Deep Toad, why do you think it's OK for doctor's to have access to lethal but peaceful drugs like Nembutal and Seconal, but not for the rest of society?
Surely letting doctors have access to a suicide pill is a bad idea due to the stresses of their job, right? But wait - there hasn't been an epidemic of suicides among doctors. Hmmmm....
Taking care of people includes pain relief. Sometimes this cannot happen without sedating them into a coma and making sure that they NEVER wake up. How is this any different, ethically or morally, from a quick death from Nembutal?
Winston Jen
One more time: It's not their job. The Hippocratic Oath states do no harm and give no deadly poison. I don't know what point it is you're trying to make unless you're just trying to lump killing into palliative care. If you are, that's as stupid as it gets. Would you really want a right to die doctor in charge of your care?
Don't be ridiculous.
I'm sorry if I were unnecessarily harsh in my initial post; Sometimes it's hard to get just the right balance or tone.
In any case, to answer one point raised by Winston Jen. She said:
If you don't wish a miserable death on anyone, why do you insist that people with leukemia, MND and so on continue to suffer? It's inconsistent. Let them end their lives if they so choose. You allow them starvation and "slow euthanasia", so why not let them die quickly if they want to?
While I admit some prefer suicide, and ending one's life is sometimes preferred -even if we think it's wrong or illegal, by my reading, I don't think Deep Toad was in favor of starvation or the such.
Those who would say things like "they're keeping Terri (or another person) alive," are wrong: I know that no one can "keep a person alive." When it's your time to die, you will die. Period.
On a different note, here is an uplifting story -from current news items, at least from my point of view:
Colorado Lawmakers Hear Song From Woman Almost Killed by Abortion --if the link is bad, you can google "Gianna Jessen" and Colorado -or see the editorial here:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=3799
My comments about Dr. Cranford's death: http://robertslegacy.blogspot.com
For those who may not know, Janie Siess was the attorney for Florence Wendland. She succeeded in preventing Robert Wendland from being dehydrated.
Janie masterfully cross examined Dr. Cranford. Indeed, I believe the reason she won the case was she destroyed his claim of dispassion and compassion on the stand. For example, I mentioned in this post how his cool depiction of dehydration chilled the court. That was Janie's doing in cross. She also got him to state that he did not believe in giving the benefit of the doubt in difficult cases to life, indeed, that people like Wendland, who was clearly conscious, and Schiavo, should not be treated at all. In other words, for Cranford, their low quality of life was the determinate, not "choice."
?indeed, that people like Wendland, who was clearly conscious, and Schiavo, should not be treated at all. In other words, for Cranford, their low quality of life was the determinate, not "choice."
Kudo's to Florence, thanks, will read her site. She's a HERO to me.
Mr. Smith, You are also a HERO to me, and I want to ask you a simple question.
How is it that Cranford got away with his perception and definition of the disabled without facing a Grand Jury?
I know why it happened in Florida, they have a good ole boy system so tight, the FBI can't pry it loose. Felos yields a lot of power in Pinellas County with Bernie McCabe. No doubt about it, they are corrupt.
But what about the rest of the country?
Oh, I am sorry. I meant to type, Janie Siess is my hero.
Florida: I have written a whole book on your question. But let us say that the definitions and goals of and in medicine are being redefined. Thus, extending life is now sometimes denigrated as "merely extending the dying process." The intrinsic value of human life is being relativized by a "quality of life" ethic.
These attitudes are becoming part of statutory law throughout the country. So, what you might consider as being a job for the grand jury is often perfectly legal, and indeed, generally applauded by policy makers, ethicists, and the general public.
Thank you Mr. Smith, I will certainly buy your book, what title?
" These attitudes are becoming part of statutory law throughout the country. So, what you might consider as being a job for the grand jury is often perfectly legal, and indeed, generally applauded by policy makers, ethicists, and the general public."
Granted, I have a lot to learn. Fortunately I live in a state where what you have described does not ring true. We still know a (definition) criminal when we see one. I am concerned for the rest of this country. I would wager the majority of the general public is not aware of what is taking place right under their nose.
Tahnks for you reply.
Culture of Death has the most thorough discussion of these issues. However, the updated Forced Exit deals as extensively with the food and fluids cases, including Schiavo.
Thank you, I will read both of them. I read your testimony at the Senate Hearings, good job and thank you.
Have you ever read "Litigation of Spirtual Pratice" by George Felos? A must read to see into the madness of Felos.
I have been tempted but want to avoid it for as long as possible.
Deep Toad, the Hippocratic Oath was only taken by a small proportion of doctors in Ancient Greece. There was a vigorous debate about the right to die, the morality of suicide, etc. and many doctors disagreed with Hippocrates.
Yes, I would much rather have a right-to-die doctor in charge of my end-of-life care. I would be able to choose when I would die, instead of being sedated into a coma with morphine, waking up every few days in agony, before finally dying weeks or months later.
And besides, in Phillip Nitchke's book, Killing Me Softly, he mentions that if a patient is considering suicide because palliative care is insufficient, he only has to call them and tell them that the patient has contacted Exit (www.exitinternational.net) about suicide methods because of the lack of pain relief. This usually jars them into action, because they don't want to be accused of encouraging suicide.
Of course, Nitschke has advocated making suicide pills available to "troubled teens." That shows you where he is coming from.
Winston, even if it is granted that a majority of practicioners of medicine in ancient Greece rejected the oath of Hippocrates, that which is encapsulated in the the oath is something either right or wrong, regardless of the opinion of a majority, however much anyone may wish to place the ancient Greeks on a pedestal. In addition, there is a reason that the tradition of Western medical practice has chosen to embrace the Hippocratic oath, so the opinions of ancient Greek practitioners are not strictly relevant here. In essence, you're claiming once again that the opinions of the majority determine morality and ethics, precisely one of the highly debatable issues in these discussions.
It is ironic that you would appeal to the opinions of any ancient Greek medical practitioners for several reasons. In short, the ancient Greeks tended to:
1. Believe that there is a universal standard of morality and ethics.
2. Believe that human life is inherently valuable.
3. Distinguish between fact and opinion and ethical reasoning.
4. Locate the value of democratic government in the wisdom and virtue of individual citizens, cultivated through nourishing the soul on truth, goodness, and beauty.
5. View the inability or unwillingness to engage in rational discussion as a mark of ignorance and lack of education, which to them represented moral and ethical deficiency as well as lack of knowledge.
6. Distinguish between 'good/fitting' deaths and 'bad/unfitting' deaths on grounds other than the presence of pain and discomfort.
Consider the contrasts between these foundational ideas of the ancient Greeks, whose majority opinion you claim to value, and your 'foundational' ideas. You apparently tended to:
1. Believe that there is no standard of morality and ethics other than the individual's opinion. (If you believe in one, you choose not to discuss it or defend it.)
2. Believe that human life is not inherently valuable, but that its value is determined by the relative proportioning of pleasure and pain in it.
3. Blur the distinctions between fact and opinion and ethical reasoning.
4. Locate the value of democratic government in the mere form of expression of a majority opinion on any given matter. The wisdom and virtue of individual citizens is irrelevant.
5. View rational discussion as irrelevant. Otherwise, you would be willing to engage in it by answering questions asked of you and by refraining from personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.
6. Classify all deaths exclusively according to whether or not one's biological processes cease.
These are a small sample of the differences between your manner of thinking and that of the ancient Greeks from whom you seek support in vain. Let the record be set straight. Your viewpoint represents a break from the Western tradition rather than a reversion to any of its wisdom and virtue.
Wesley, Phillip Nitschke was making a point about sucide.
Namely, that doctors and vets have easy access to Nembutal, Seconal, etc., and can therefore obtain a peaceful death at a time of their own choosing.
Why then, is it unfair to deny this knowledge and equipment to everyday people? At the very least, the rate of VIOLENT suicides will go down, and if there is a greater acceptance and understanding of suicide, depressed teenagers would be more willing to talk about their suicidal intentions, and get help, which would reduce teenage suicide.
He's a lot better than you, Wesley, who had the gall to claim on these blogs that Diane Pretty died "peacefully in her sleep." You and the pro-lifers are guilty of torture and deprivation of liberty. Case closed.
Too bad Jesus couldn't take a suicide pill when he was strung up on the cross, huh?
Am I religious zealot because I remind people, God sayth, Thou Shalt Not Kill. If you are suffering, there's a reason for that suffering. That is the one unforgivable sin, suicide. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anyone that committed it. God says he is funny that way.
Moving on..
Mr. Smith, I have a quote for you out of Feloss book. Want your opinion on it, okay?
watchingflorida, Jesus didn't need a "suicide pill", because if you look at the accounts, it clearly states that god ended Jesus' suffering, indicating that suffering by itself is meanlingless.
Indeed, the basis of the Christian religion is the death and resurrection, not the suffering.
If you think suffering happens for a reason, then logically you should also oppose all painkillers. That was the reason given by the Church to prohibit women from using painkillers during childbirth.
And didn't Jesus commit suicide by not preventing his execution, hmm? You'd also make exceptions for these types of killing, wouldn't you?
-Self-defence, or defence of a 3rd party.
-Killing in wartime.
-Killing the mother to save the unborn baby.
-Praying for god to kill your enemies and then rejoicing when they die.
watchingflorida, Jesus didn't need a "suicide pill", because if you look at the accounts, it clearly states that god ended Jesus' suffering, indicating that suffering by itself is meanlingless.
***Jesus suffered and died for our sins. That's the story. Suffering in the bible is not described as meanlingless, you have it backwards.***
Indeed, the basis of the Christian religion is the death and resurrection, not the suffering.
***I don't know where you are getting that from. We all suffer at one time or another in our life and it brings us closer to God. That IS the reason. ***
If you think suffering happens for a reason, then logically you should also oppose all painkillers. That was the reason given by the Church to prohibit women from using painkillers during childbirth.
***No, I don't, that's ridiculous.***
And didn't Jesus commit suicide by not preventing his execution, hmm? You'd also make exceptions for these types of killing, wouldn't you?
***No, he didn't, it was God's plan. You question it instead of having Faith. Your call, good luck.
-Self-defence, or defence of a 3rd party.
No, I would certainly defend myself, God would certainly expect me to protect myself from evil.
-Killing in wartime.
-Killing the mother to save the unborn baby.
-Praying for god to kill your enemies and then rejoicing when they die.
***I don't pray for anyone's demise, if that's what you are trying to say.
What do the other examples you gave have to do with killing yourself? I said it is the unforgivable sin. You chose not to believe it, that's your soul, not mine. Why push it on other people, you want to be a part of selling out their soul to Satan? If you want to kill yourself, surely you can figure out how to do it. That's the deal but you apparently are one of those liberals that freaks everytime you hear the word God.
Watching Florida: Send the quote along.
Winston Jen: No, Nitschke sincerely wants the "peaceful pill" available to anyone who wants it. He says that if we own our bodies, we have the right to dispose of it any way we want--which seems your POV as well.
Read his interview in National Review Online. Use the search function here. I am pretty sure you can find it. Or, go to nationalreview.com and find it there.
And just what would be the problem with that, Wesley? Doctors have access to suicide pills any time they want, and they don't commit suicide upon a whim (despite the fact that their jobs are among the most stressful possible.
Can you prove that making a suicide pill freely available will increase suicide rates? Final Exit did not result in a spike in suicides, after all.
Dead teens who were not sick have been found repeatedly next to their copies of Final Exit.
So? At the very least, it's better than them jumping out of a window and landing on YOU, isn't it?
You've only shown that the methods of suicide changed, not that the rate of suicide increased.
You're all heart, Winston Jen.
Thank you, Mr. Soulless.
The fact remains that Final Exit did not precipitate an increase in the suicide rate. For that to occur, it would have to magically MAKE readers depressed, and advocate suicide as a good thing.
It did not. Derek Humphrey recommended counselling for those who were depressed.
You continue to ignore these points, most likely because you hope that people will ignore them, and because you have no good counterarguments.
Your view on condemning suicide and blaming the victim is more likely to increase suicide by discouraging the depressed to talk about it.
I don't know enough about the book Final Exit to say what its content is, but I would like to know if we're trading assumptions here when we say that the book did or did not increase suicide rates or change suicide methods. If we're trading assumptions based on hunches given our individual worldviews, then we might be better served discussing this posting.
Would it even be possible to know absolutely that the suicide rate changed and in what direction as a result of the book? People are more complex than their opinions, as several of us have said before. They are also more complex than their reading lists. Whether or not a book depresses someone to the point of suicide or whether or not an already depressed person commits suicide as a result of reading a book are beyond anyone's ability to find out conclusively. Any statement recommending counseling for the depressed does not really clarify the issue.
There are good reasons not to respond to such points, Winston. Mainly, they tend to be explosions of opinion with little structured thought. Counterarguments should be saved for fully formed arguments.
Watching Florida is an ass......You are correct in one thing and that is you did "inspire him to continue his work".'
You were incorrect in that he wasn't dieing from "liver cancer"in your email to hi, as you so vehemently typed to him but in fact he ended up dieing from kidney cancer.
Contrary to your HOPES, he died a peaceful death AND just like what he had preached his entire life, he had requested "aggressive pallative care" and had all food and water removed in his final days......
Not that YOU deserve to read this or understand this but he died exactly as he preached and as he wanted and I know because I was one of his two daughters who held his hand as he passed away and I will tell you personally that there were no GATES OF HELL waiting for him, just the opposite - in fact he died a lot quicker than you will!
I thank the author for starting this thread in a positive spirit because you can have your differences yet when a person dies, you should respect just that.
If anybody feels the need to contact me, please do so at kristin@pokerpadz.com as I am Dr. Cranford's daughter and have no problem addressing comments directly!
Kristin Cranford
Watchingflorida is as ASS.....The only thing that he got correct was the quote "i inspired him to continue his work."
That is correct, what you were incorrect in your email was that you wished that he had a painful death due to his liver cancer!
Sorry to report that he did not have liver cancer but instead kidney cancer.
He - contrary to your wishes died a peaceful death, in fact holding the hands of each of his 2 daughters.
I also hate to report that there were "No gates of hell" waiting for him, in fact just he opposite. He only spent a few hours in the hospice unit before he left this world peacefully!
He, just like all of his patients he spoke for when they could not, had the opportunity to have his medical directive in force which consisted of "aggresive pallative care" and removal of food and water. He didn't do anything different than what he spent his life teaching or held his patients accountable for. He in fact spent his last weeks at his teaching facility HCMC, when in fact one of the top hospitals in the world was around the corner but he wanted to be at HCMC for teaching purposes because that is what he believed in!
With that said, I hope you burn in hell and have a lot longer grinding session from this world to the next when it's time for you to perish!!!!!
To the author of this blog, thank you for your handling of this in the most decent, humane way!
If ANYBODY has any questions or comments please direct them to me personally at kristin@pokerpadz.com as I am Dr. Ronald Cranford's daughter.
Thank you.....
Kristin Cranford
Post a Comment
<< Home